Reaction to the Iowa Caucus

So I thought it would be a tougher race for Cruz and Rubio when going against Donald Trump.  But Cruz pulled out the win.  However, some interesting things happened during the caucus.  For one Cruz won with the most votes cast in Iowa's history for a single candidate.   This shows in my opinion that people want a strong conservative in the Republican Party as a whole.  Also it shows that Trump does not hold a lock for the win.  

Governor Mike Huckabee has exited the race as well as Martin O'Malley.  They realized they were never going to win, but there exiting is important.  For one, Martin O'Malley's supporters are likely to go to Hillary which is important for the Democratic nomination with respect to the upcoming New Hampshire primary.   Likewise Huckabee's supporters are likely to support Trump or Rubio which can potentially hurt Cruz, but if Cruz's supporters in New Hampshire are as strong as they were in Iowa, then maybe it will not matter how many more supporters Trump and Rubio may get.

Now to the even bigger news of the day.  Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton tied in Iowa.  This may be due to the student support "brand new voters" who largely support Mr. Sanders.  However, neither achieved a victory despite getting the delegates needed to ultimately decide the nominee.  But you have a Socialist (a real one) versus Hillary who is progressive.  It is a referendum on the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.  Whoever wins will set the course for what the future of the Democratic Party may look like.  

Final Thought:  Records have been broken, and there was a tie between the democratic contenders.  This is shaping up to be a very interesting and wonderful Presidential race as we have people with diverse ideas and ideologies coming together to butt heads and help carve out the future direction of the United States.  I look forward to what is essentially a three man race with the Republicans (Trump, Cruz and Rubio) and the battle of ideologies in the Democratic Party with Hillary and Sanders.  As a person who enjoys politics, this is going to be fun.

Last Republican Primary debate reaction.

Ok I waited several days to digest the debate because I was not confident on what I saw last Thursday.  But now I am ready to give my reaction.  That reaction is as follows.

For one, Trump not being there was a blessing.  Donald Trump being who he is, is a total disruption and distracts from everything policy wise due to his rambunctious bomb throwing personality.  As such, we got a real debate on policy issues and what the other candidates would do if they became President.  Most of the talk focused on ISIS when it came to national defense, with the other topic being addressed being and tax reform.  However Rand Paul being back on stage was something of a canary in the coal mine.  Many of the pundits agree with me, or maybe I should say I agree with them, that Rand provided constitutional context to any policy as he was the go to on stage for constitutional questions.  As such he acted as a bomb thrower saying "ok, you can do this, but not that due to the Constitution" or his applying the economic and social freedom arguments to his answers which forced the other candidates to respond in ways that they did not appear to be prepared for.  

As to the candidates individually, while I do not agree that he will make a good President with respect to my own differences in politics, Chris Christie, I believe, with his passion and vigor would make him a great choice as attorney general (he is a former prosecutor as I understand).  Jeb Bush as usual was soft spoken, but whether it be him, or his advisors, he was more passionate and pushed his way into the limelight giving a good showing.  So it was his best performance yet even if it was not enough to win the nomination.  Kasich I really did not hear anything of substance and seemed to be ignored most of the debate.  Ben Carson spoke up and had a few zingers, but sadly he will not be nominated as the Republican base (or should I say leadership does not think he can win if pitted against Hillary.  Rubio and Cruz had a great tit for tat on their records and Rand Paul served as the individual to confirm if what they were saying about each other was true or not (they are all after all Senators who work together regularly).  At the end, Rubio and Cruz tied it up in that debate as Rubio made himself look more electable, and Cruz successfully fending off most attacks save on the issue of immigration reform where he looked as if he was caught up in a lie or an act on the issue of amnesty something his voting record clearly shows he is not in favor of.  

Post-debate interviews were great as they allowed candidates to clarify their answers from the debate and more time to speak their piece.  Most of these interviews after the debate though focused on parrying the attacks made on the candidates and clarifying their record.  Cruz used this most successfully to try and fix the perception that he was pro amnesty as Fox News/Google (the debate hosts) played clips of the candidates speaking on issues in testimony while in Congress or from interviews.  Basically it made it impossible for them to lie on stage if they were intending to in the first place.  Needless to say post-debate interview wise Cruz being the person in second place nationally used this interview well and Megyn Kelly even clarified that Cruz's voting record showed he did not support amnesty, but that the clip that Fox/google showed made him look a bit dishonest, as if he was acting out a part while giving that testimony.  Cruz struggled a little with how to answer when presented with this, but ultimately after Megyn Kelly pushing him answered that he was using the opponent’s words against them (the opponents being pro amnesty Democrats and Republicans).

Final Thought:  The debate was overall successful and enjoyable especially the fact checking and the video clips used by the debate hosts.  I wish I could have heard more from Rand Paul as he is my number one candidate with Cruz and Carson being numbers two and three.  With the Iowa voters gearing up today, we are sure to have an enjoyable news day for those like me who like Presidential horse races.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them later

Get your facts first, then you can distort them later, by Mark Twain.  Ah, Mark Twain, the man is full of witty and funny wisdoms.  In this case his quote here is about politicians, charlatans, or even an author or two.  The idea is simple, get all the information you can.  Educate yourself as much as possible so that you know more than others or at least more than you knew about a subject yesterday.  Now you can use this information to advance yourself, or, more importantly, know when others are trying to distort the facts.  That is the essence of the quote.  You should know and learn anything and everything you can, for otherwise people can take what you do not know and manipulate you.  No one likes to manipulated, and sure, by knowing your own facts you can potentially manipulate others, but you have morals.  You have the character to not do something so foul (right?).  

Final Thought:  Twain gave us a simple quote on knowledge and manipulation of knowledge, and then we think.  At that point we truly understand that knowledge is power and we can have knowledge over ourselves and others.  It is up to us to prevent power over ourselves from being stolen through the manipulation of the facts, a lesson I re-iterate multiple times in multiple issues in my little blog here.  In fact I purposely make sure everyone knows when they read my blog that this is all opinion based on information.  Opinion is not fact and thus should be questioned and discussed.  I do not want my blog to become a source for information other than the fact that it is my opinion.  Instead I like it to be used as a window to say, is he right?  Let me look this up.  I never want you my readers to be used by anyone, and especially not even myself, so I will always invite questions, debate and discussion, for through those we can eventually find the truth.

Trump Boycotts last GOP debate.

Donald Trump is boycotting the last Republican debate because Megyn Kelly is one of the moderators.  He apparently really does not like her.   This is sadly disappointing for a prospective Presidential candidate for it reflects poorly on how he would deal with people while as a President.  You cannot just say to President Putin of Russia that he will not get on the phone because he does not like him.  You can't do that with any world leader, and yet he is doing it with one News Reporter/Commentator.  This to me just blows my mind.  Sure, I am not a fan of Trump, but any candidate doing something like this is a terrible reflection of leadership ability and makes Trump look childish.  If I didn't like Trump before, I certainly don't like him now.

Final Thought:  A President serves at the behest of the people.  You cannot be childish and refuse to do something or see someone simply because you do not like them.  Presidents have to deal with the best of the best and the lowest of the low.  If you can't deal with people and learn to grin and bear it when doing something or associating with people that you don't want to be around, then you're not ready or able to serve as President.  This is a game ender.  Game over Donald Trump.  That is just my two cents.

Non-Aggression Principle

Libertarians are somewhat in disagreement as to what is the founding principle of the libertarian movement.  In this case the Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is one idea where aggression should not exist at all as an absolute for libertarianism to work.  But Austin Peterson (a person running for President of the United States on Facebook) and an article by Matt Zwolinski "Six Reasons Libertarians should Reject the Non-aggression Principle" says no to the NAP.  Let us discuss.

What is the NAP and why it does not work:  Basically, the NAP advocates doing no harm.  You cannot hit a person or do anything that resembles harm.  However this idea does not work based on what the NAP means by harm.  For instance, with pollution, there is none allowed.  So you cannot have factories or power plants that emit smoke.  No dust due to construction.  Basically, anything that is construed as pollution is not allowed, and thus things that potentially could pollute are also not allowed.  Then there is potential harm.  Under the NAP, potential harm is not allowed.  So nothing that risks another person's wellbeing.  As such, no fake threats like "I'll punch you" or "I'll kick your butt" or pointing a knife at someone on accident while talking is a big no no. Fraud is allowed under the NAP as it is not an aggressive act.  So someone can trick you out of your money and get away with it.  Then there is trespassing.  If you trespass onto someone else's property, then the owner can beat you up as trespassing is considered an aggressive act.  So here the NAP is hypocritical as it supports property rights as opposed to non-violence.   And finally we have children.  Willful neglect is allowed under the NAP.  Basically, as long as you do not hinder your own child from obtaining their own food, then allowing them to starve to death is ok.  On top of that, if someone gives your child food while coming onto your property, you can beat the person for feeding your child.  These are the flaws of the NAP and why I do not believe in the NAP as the foundation for my libertarianism.

Final Thought:  I write this because there is a fundamental disagreement about libertarianism that has caused misconceptions.  My libertarian principles is basically, do not tread on the rights of others, respect people's right to property and do not perform any of the obviously wrongful acts.  With these basics you get in my opinion a purer libertarianism without controversy.  Libertarianism is all about respecting others and their personal rights.  Sure there are some disagreements on things like welfare, how much government and abortion, but who doesn't have those kinds of issues within their political and religious ideologies.  Remember it is about personal responsibility and freedom together, not just not doing harm or even being an ideology.

New Hampshire Primary

So I was able to watch a little bit of the New Hampshire primaries Saturday where a number of the Republican candidates were able to participate in a town hall set up.  Here is my reaction.

I will have to say that the Republican field is very decent with respect to personal and economic freedoms (though they do not go as far as I'd like).  However I heard good things like regulation reforms, tax reforms and more.  However, none have really impressed me (from the ones I got to listen too) overall.  Though I can say that Jeb Bush probably did the best in the town halls (from those I got to listen too) and showed why he is a really decent candidate for President.  If it weren't for the fact that his last name was Bush and people are sick of dynasty Presidencies, he would probably be a frontrunner right now.  I was also impressed with Carly Fiorina where she willing answered every tough question and seemed to want them so that she could show that she could take it and also to be honest about her views including the legalization of drugs.  I also heard from a speaker from Pennsylvania I believe, but as far as I know he is not running despite having a lot to say on trade reform and fixing the Bureaucracy.  My dad was able to see Rubio and Christie and he liked them both and what they had to say, but I cannot comment beyond that for I did not see them.

Trump and Cruz were both absent from the Primary instead doing their own thing.   In this case Cruz accepted an endorsement from Glenn Beck, the spiritual leader of the Tea Party and the Owner of the Blaze network.  I was able to watch that live and needless to say Glenn Beck's intro was strong.  Cruz followed up with his acceptance of the endorsement by discussing how he was going to be a true conservative even on the campaign trail if he gets the nomination.  His reasoning was that everyone is conservative during the nomination process, but goes moderate in the general election.  Cruz promised not to do that and be real all the way through to the end.

Sadly I was not able to hear a literal peep out of Trump.  He did not receive coverage or I potentially missed him from the point I turned on the TV.  

Now we wait to see if anything these Candidates said will impact the upcoming debate on Fox News this Thursday.

Hope you enjoyed the snow storm (well I sure did cause it kept me in the house long enough to watch the primaries, something I did so yall don't have to lol).  See you all tomorrow.

A quote by David Bowie

In honor of David Bowie (actor, singer and more) I present a quote by him.

The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time.

What does this mean?  Simply put, David Bowie did not see life as a bunch of small journeys or even a big one.  Instead he saw life from a day to day perspective (at least this is the case if I am interpreting this correctly).  Basically, we all come and go and change ourselves all at the same time.  There is no real end goal or any treasure at the end, but instead it is what we take from life and leave behind in each waking moment of every day.  It is our choices that influence what happens to us and our potential.

Final Thought:  This means that Bowie saw life as something that is constantly changing and altering.  It is essentially chaos, and we simply try to make sense of it.  I disagree on the part of there being no journey, but I do agree that life is about hellos and goodbyes, and what comes of those hellos and goodbyes.